The following information was archived from the California Democratic Party | 1401 21st Street, Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95814
information from 2006 election
The Arnold Page: Broken Promises..............................................................................................................
Arnold's Deepest Cuts...
The ones he promises not to make, but then does anyway:
Promise Made:
"Now, does this mean that we're going to make cuts? Yes… Does this
mean education's on the table? No.” (Los Angeles Times, 8/21/03)
Promise Broken:
“Cuts could not be made to federally mandated programs…but it leaves
a lot of areas open to cuts -- including education…” (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/06/05)
This is a promise Arnold has worked to break everyday since he made it. If Prop 76 passes he can say he has a mandate to decrease the state’s already minimum funding efforts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Press Release: October 11, 2006
by Amanda Crumley
"Governor Schwarzenegger didn't change Sacramento. Sacramento changed him. And that's why you can't trust him." -- Amanda Crumley,
In an editorial board interview reported in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, Gov. Schwarzenegger once again stepped back in time and pledged to bring back his failed Special Election ideas.
Pension Privatization, Part 2: Schwarzenegger told the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that if reelected, he would continue to pursue his special interest, special election agenda that included taking pensions away from police officers and firefighters. "The first year I was very successful with the carrot and stick approach," he said. "The second year that didn't work. ... My mistake (in the special election) was not to give it enough time and work with the Legislature, and to recognize some things like that take a long period of time."
$100 Million Amnesia: “I said we have to stop the money from going in and the favors from going out. ... I cannot be bought by anyone, and anyone who gives me money buys into that philosophy.”
Schwarzenegger has sided squarely with the special interests against California families at every turn, and that’s why he’s raked in over $100 million from big oil and tobacco, HMOs, pharmaceuticals, and other corporate special interests. (Secretary of State records)
The Governor failed to get behind bills to ban legislative fundraising during the budget season -- bill that were rejected by his own party the two times they were introduced. He also promised to ban fundraising during bill signing periods, yet he’s raised millions. For example:
In August and September of 2004, he vetoed nearly 300 bills and raised $2.7 million.
In September and October of 2005, the Governor vetoed 214 bills while raising $24.5 million.
In September of this year, the Governor raised more than $5 million after vetoing 73 bills
(Secretary of State records and Legislative Update, Governor’s Office, 9/30/06).
SF Chronicle: 10/12/06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schwarzenegger told us he’d “end the crazy deficit spending” (Associated Press Online, September 5, 2003) and tear up the credit card (The San Francisco Chronicle, December 5, 2003). But he’s borrowed billions (www.treasurer.ca.gov/publications/2005dar.pdf), and the LAO estimates his deficits will continue at $5 billion a year (“California Spending Plan 2006-07: The Budget Act and Related Legislation: Summary”, Legislative Analyst’s Office, September 2006).
Schwarzenegger says “no to more taxes” (Fresno Bee, September 14, 2003), but he’s raised more than $2 billion in taxes and fees on the hard-working middle class: he suspended the teacher retention tax credit, which raised more than $500 million in taxes on teachers over three years. He raised fees at community colleges, the CSU and UC systems levying $1.7 billion in fees on students and their families. And he’s raised fees for parks and government programs including Healthy Families.
Schwarzenegger said he’d take on special interests and didn’t “need to take money from anyone." (San Francisco Chronicle, September 30, 2003). But he’s raised over $100 million from special-interests including millions from oil companies, HMOs and pharmaceutical companies (Secretary of State records).
Schwarzenegger told us “We have to make sure that every child in California is insured. That is the most important thing.” (San Gabriel Valley Tribune, September 25, 2005 Sunday) Yet he tried to slash Healthy Families, which would have eliminated coverage for over 100,000 kids (Ventura County Star, December 2, 2003). And he vetoed a bill that would have provided health coverage for all the state’s children (Chan AB 772, see leginfo.ca.gov).
Schwarzenegger told us cutting schools wouldn’t happen; “not over my dead body” (Los Angeles Times, September 5, 2003). But he cut $3 billion from our schools (Ventura County Star, June 1, 2005).
The only ones who trust Schwarzenegger are the special interests.
He’s made us safer. I’m a nurse and I trust him. He’s made it safer for our families.
Schwarzenegger famously bragged of “always kicking nurses’ butts” and tried to take away their pension security. Now he says his special interest, special election agenda – including stripping pensions from nurses and fire fighters – is still a “good idea.”
My union’s endorsing Governor Schwarzenegger because working families can trust him. Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Bush have the same agenda to cut school funding, threaten retirement security, raise the cost of college for middle class families and support the War in Iraq, so it makes sense that Bush’s favorite union, the Carpenters, is supporting Schwarzenegger.
I trust the Governor. We trust Governor Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger cannot be trusted by teachers and firefighters and police officers, etc. because he has recently repeatedly said that he will revisit the "good ideas" from his special interest, special election.
California families can’t trust Arnold Schwarzenegger because, like George Bush, he’s on the side of the special interests.
Governor Schwarzenegger is bringing Californians together.
The Governor's use of divisive language and name calling, and going on right-wing radio to praise the minutemen is not uniting anyone -- it is divisive and it is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Students Turn Out For "Terminate the Terminator" Day on College Campuses
Press Release: October 11, 2006
by Nick Warshaw, College Democrats
Tuesday students across California demonstrated their outrage over tuition increases, joining in at ten public universities to "Terminate the Terminator." Student leaders dressed in Arnold Schwarzenegger masks talked with other college students about their frustration with the Governor's tax hikes on students. Other student leaders handed out checks payable to the governor in the amount of $5,000 - which is the amount Schwarzenegger raised their tuition -- and asked their fellow students what they would do with an extra $5,000 dollars if the governor hadn't raised their fees.
This is what some students had to say:
"I wouldn't be in debt from the student loans I had to take out, because of the tuition increases."
Michel Pignatiello, senior at California State University San Francisco
"I would be able to focus on studying and not working 3 jobs to pay for tuition."
Lauren Macheski, University of California Los Angeles
"I would be able to further my education and attend law school if I didn't have to pay the extra fees."
Ben Sheldon-Tarzynski, University of California Santa Barbara
"I would pay my car payments."
Zach Austin, third year student at California State Poly University Pomona
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
middle class families are working harder for less, but every time there’s a choice, Governor Schwarzenegger, like George Bush, stands with big corporations and special interests.
Governor Schwarzenegger has raised taxes and fees on working families by more than $2 billion – taking tax credits away from teachers, hiking park fees, and raising tuition and fees. He even proposed taking property tax relief away seniors, and he said recently he’d like to raise taxes on gasoline.
He’s a great governor for education. He lowered tuition at community colleges by 23 percent. He vetoed a bill that tried to lower academic standards.
Schwarzenegger promised not to cut education funding - but he cut $3 billion from our schools.
Schwarzenegger raised tuition and fees on students and families at our colleges and universities because he believes “college fees were too low.”
All we’ve seen is cuts to education and attacks on teachers, and now we’re 48th out of 50 states in student achievement and 43rd in what we spend to educate each child.
UC Increases:
Year
UC System-Wide Fees
Yearly Change
2005-06
$6,141
8.00%
2004-05
$5,684
14.00%
2003-04
$4,984
Change
$1,157
23.20%
Source: Joinarnold.com
CSU Increases:
Year
CSU System-Wide Fees
Yearly Change
2005-06
$2,520
8.00%
2004-05
$2,334
14.10%
2003-04
$2,046
Change
$474
23.20%
Source: Joinarnold.com
The Governor supports the fire service.
Schwarzenegger tried to strip pensions from fire fighters in his special election, and he still thinks that’s a “good idea.”
Schwarzenegger vetoed the recommendations of his Blue Ribbon Fire Commission after the San Diego fires (Contra Costa Times, October 23, 2005).
He’s made it safer for all our families. Across the board, from parole decisions, to neglecting the crisis in our prisons, we’ve seen that we can’t trust Gov Schwarzenegger to protect the public.
He cares about health care.
Schwarzenegger twice vetoed health care for children, tried to impose steep hikes in premiums, and approved huge bonuses for HMO executives
I trust him. Governor Schwarzenegger is bringing Californians together.
California families can’t trust Arnold Schwarzenegger because, like George Bush, he’s on the side of the special interests.
Our Party
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the years ahead, Governor Schwarzenegger claimed he will continue to prove that a booming economy and a healthy environment can go hand-in-hand.
Schwarzenegger has presided over only mediocre job growth. During the second half of the 1990s, California outperformed the nation in job growth. But under Arnold Schwarzenegger, California is barely keeping with the poor performance of George Bush. Unemployment in California increased from 4.8 percent in July to 4.9 percent in August, while the number of Californians holding jobs in August decreased by 133,000.
Schwarzenegger opposes Phil Angelides ' plan to stimulate job growth by offering small businesses a tax break worth up to $5,000.
Schwarzenegger promised not to cut education funding: “not over my dead body” -- but he’s cut $3 billion from our schools.
Schwarzenegger raised the cost of a teaching credential, making it harder to recruit and hire the 100,000 new teachers we will need in the next decade, raised taxes on teachers by over $500 million.
All we’ve seen is cuts to education and attacks on teachers, and now we’re 48th out of 50 states in student achievement and 43rd in what we spend to educate each child.
Schwarzenegger twice vetoed health care for children, tried to impose steep hikes in premiums, and approved huge bonuses for HMO executives.
Governor Schwarzenegger will "keep moving California forward."
California families can’t trust Arnold Schwarzenegger because, like George Bush, he’s on the side of the special interests.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is stunning that the Governor said in Saturday's debate that he wants to resurrect the issues Californians overwhelmingly rejected in his $70 million special election. Either he doesn’t understand the word ‘NO’ or he just loves to spend our tax dollars needlessly.” Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation.
Last year, Californians sent the Governor a resounding message by rejecting all of his special election initiatives. What part of “No!” does Arnold Schwarzenegger not understand?
At Saturday’s debate, the curtain on Schwarzenegger’s carefully crafted moderate persona was briefly pulled back when he said that last year’s special election was a “good idea.” You’d think after the people resoundingly rejected his coordinated attack on teachers, first responders and nurses, the Governor would have realized that it would be folly to repeat his mistakes and waste another $70 million of taxpayer money to attack them again. But that’s not the case.
The Governor, who broke his promise to fully fund our schools, to insure the state’s children and to clean up Sacramento will use a 2nd term to keep his promise to his special interest backers:
And, there was, if it was education reform, budget reform, and all the various different reforms that we had in mind last year, and I went too fast. . . I pushed too fast, there were good ideas there, but I did not bring all the legislators on board, I didn't bring people together enough, and therefore the thing failed, but I learned my lesson from that. ( Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gubernatorial Debate, October 7, 2006)
“While their disagreements over taxes were old hat for anyone who has been watching the campaign, the debate did break some new ground — specifically, the assertion by Schwarzenegger that he still believes the ideas behind the failed ballot initiatives he supported in last year's special election are 'good ideas.'” ( Timm Herdt , Ventura County Star , October 8, 2006)
Schwarzenegger’s state of denial about last year’s campaign against working people also showed up later in the debate, when he flatly denied that he tried to take pensions away from teachers, firefighters and police officers:
I think it is also important to note that I did not try to take anything away from any police officer or firefighter. ( Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gubernatorial Debate, October 7, 2006)
Schwarzenegger’s denial is startling, given his high-profile campaign to strip workers of their pensions last year.
In a dramatic policy reversal Thursday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger backed off his plan to privatize California 's public employee pension system, saying "misconceptions" by firefighters and police officers that it would strip them of death and disability benefits had come to dominate the issue. Schwarzenegger, who launched an aggressive pension reform initiative in January, said he would wait until the June 2006 election to put it on the ballot if lawmakers didn't craft a compromise measure in coming months. "Let's pull it back and do it better," said Schwarzenegger, who was flanked by more than a dozen police, fire and local government leaders. "That's what this is about. We're saying, 'Let's do it better."' (Associated Press, April 7, 2005)
Schwarzenegger then went on to promise “never to take away” the pensions of working Californians. But, this vow is destined to be added to the long list of broken promises Schwarzenegger has made to California ’s working families. Because at the same time, he admitted that taking away pensions is still a top priority: “In his first public appearance since he abruptly pulled the plug on his controversial pension initiative, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger insisted yesterday that overhauling costly public pension systems remains at the top of his agenda.” (Governor: Pension overhaul still a priority, San Diego Union-Tribune, April 12, 2005)
As a matter of fact, I can say right now, I will never take away their pension, or their disability, or their death benefit or anyone, no firefighters, no police officers, or anyone else as far as that goes, so you can stop that hype right there. (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gubernatorial Debate, October 7, 2006)
At one point, Schwarzenegger even expressed regret for not putting more of his special interest agenda on his special election ballot: "Everything you see in this reform thing - never look at it like this is all we need," he said. "I could have put 15 more ideas on the ballot, but people are already saying we are doing too much." ( Sacramento Bee, November 3, 2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHWARZENEGGER'S RHETORIC
THE TRUTH
Arnold & Taxes “I have never raised taxes.”
Schwarzenegger broke his promise to not raise taxes and he is opposed to giving more than 4 million Californians a tax cut. While Schwarzenegger campaigned on the promise not to raise taxes, the truth is that Schwarzenegger has only kept his promise for the wealthiest Californians, tobacco companies and oil companies. And he opposes Phil Angelides’ middle class tax cut. Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger has burdened middle class families, seniors and teachers with more than $2.5 billion in tax and fee increases since he took office.
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s tax and fee increases include:
A half-billion dollar tax increase on teachers
More than $1.7 billion in higher education tuition and fee increases
Increases in health care fees and park fees
Job Growth “I’ve created jobs.” Schwarzenegger has presided over only mediocre job growth. From 1995 to 1999, jobs in California grew by 15.4% while jobs nationwide grew by just 12.1%. (Economic Development Department & Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Under Arnold Schwarzenegger, California is barely keeping up with even the poor performance of George Bush. Since October 2003, California’s jobs have grown just 4.4%, just a tad higher than the national (George W Bush) rate of 4%. (Economic Development Department & Bureau of Labor Statistics)
And keep this comment in mind:
“If a politician tries to take credit for job growth, don't believe it."– Arnold Schwarzenegger, January 2005 State of the State address
Education Funding “I’ve provided record funding for schools.” Schwarzenegger broke his promise not to cut school funding, and then broke his promise to restore his cuts. Instead of keeping his promise to California's school children that school funding would be cut “not over my dead body,” (Los Angeles Times, September 5, 2003).
“The statute allowing the suspension states that the education budget shall be based on the Proposition 98 formula, minus $2 billion. But revenues that year were significantly higher than expected, meaning Proposition 98 funding would have been higher than estimated when the budget was being assembled.
The governor's budget stuck with the original figure.
The Education Coalition argues that the suspension ended up being $3.8 billion, when it should have only been $2 billion.
The coalition says that difference carried over into the 2005-06 budget by an additional $1.3 billion, meaning the two years add up to a $3.1 billion shortfall.”- The Daily News of Los Angeles, August 10, 2005
Schwarzenegger then broke his promise to restore the $3 billion in cuts. He had to be dragged “kicking and screaming” into court to restore the funds:
The state's top school official and largest teachers union have sued Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to restore $3.1 billion they claim the governor promised public schools a month after he took office. - Associated Press, August 10, 2005
Budget “I’ve balanced the budget.”
The Governor has left the state with over $24 billion in deficit borrowing and facing a budget deficit of at least $4.5 billion next year.
“Despite much stronger-than-expected revenues, 2006-07 expenditures exceed revenues, with the difference being covered by the drawdown of carryover reserves available from 2005-06. Based on our out-year estimates of revenues and expenditures, we estimate that this imbalance will continue in 2007-08 and 2008-09 absent corrective action, with annual operating shortfalls in the range of $4.5 billion and $5 billion projected for this period.” - LAO, “California Spending Plan 2006-07: The Budget Act and Related Legislation: Summary,” September 26, 2006
“All of this leaves the state on the same precarious path it has traveled for years. At the moment, the best projections suggest that whoever is governor in January 2007 will face a shortfall of about $3.5 billion in the budget they are required to submit to the Legislature.… - Dan Weintraub, Sacramento Bee, June 29, 2006
“…This budget still will spend $3.4 billion more than the state takes in. So it's not really balanced, despite the dance spin.” - George Skelton, Los Angeles Times, June 29, 2006
“…Excuse us for not breaking out the Cristal champagne with the rest of Sacramento…This year's $131 billion budget papers over all flaws…Next year's budget will be handed a shortfall of more than $3 billion. - San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board, June 29, 2006
And Schwarzenegger has admitted he has “no plan” for dealing with the deficit.
“No, there really is no plan to end the deficit”, - Arnold Schwarzenegger, KCRA June 30, 2006
We know what Schwarzenegger will do next year if he’s reelected – he’ll do exactly what he did before – raise the cost of living for middle class families by cutting school funding, raising tuition and fees, and cutting health care for children, the disabled, and the elderly. Middle class families will pay the price for Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget.
Tuition & Fees “I’ve frozen tuition and fees.”
Schwarzenegger increased college tuition. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently said that he thought college tuition in california was "too low" so he increased tuition and fees at UC, CSU, and community colleges, placing yet another burden on middle class families.
UC Increases:
Year
UC System-Wide Fees
Yearly Change
2005-06
$6,141
8.00%
2004-05
$5,684
14.00%
2003-04
$4,984
Percent Change
$1,157
23.20%
Source: Joinarnold.com
CSU Increases:
Year
CSU System-Wide Fees
Yearly Change
2005-06
$2,520
8.00%
2004-05
$2,334
14.10%
2003-04
$2,046
Percent Change
$474
23.20%
Source: Joinarnold.com
Schwarzenegger said that he raised tuition and fees “up a little bit” (KXTV, August 18, 2006), but most families wouldn’t consider $1,000 be “a little bit.”
Schwarzenegger opposes Angelides’ plans to roll back the Governor’s tuition and fee hikes. Just this week, CSU Trustees cancelled their annual budget meeting, pushing off their decision to seek more fee hikes until after the election:
“The California State University Board of Trustees has canceled a late-October meeting where it was to consider boosting student fees by as much as 10 percent for the next school year.The Oct. 26 monthly meeting would have been held less than two weeks before the Nov. 7 general election. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides has been critical of fee increases at California universities and community colleges under Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.”- Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 5, 2006
Special Interests “I stood up to special interests.”
When Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for office in 2003, he promised that he would clean up Sacramento. But, since then, Schwarzenegger has broken fund-raising records and turned the Capitol into a cash register for his campaign operation. Since 2003, Schwarzenegger has raised more than $100 million—or about $100,000 for every day that he’s been in office (if you assume the Governor has worked 40 hours per week, that’s about $17,500 per hour from special interests).
HMOs and Insurance: Schwarzenegger has raised $1.1 million from HMOs and health insurance companies and done their bidding. He vetoed maternity care standards for HMOs.
“Schwarzenegger vetoed Speier bills that would have required insurance carriers to provide maternity benefits and hospitals to report their infection rates. In these cases, and many others, he cited the cost to business in his veto message.” - The San Francisco Chronicle, October 2, 2004
And Schwarzenegger approved huge HMO mergers that led to higher premiums for middle class families and enormous profits for HMO executives.
State Treasurer Phil Angelides and the California Medical Assn. on Thursday criticized the proposed purchase of Cypress-based insurer PacifiCare Health Systems Inc., calling $315 million in payouts to top executives excessive.One day before a Sacramento public hearing on the proposed $8.1-billion deal with Minnetonka, Minn.-based UnitedHealth Group Inc., Angelides also asked the administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state's two big public employee pension systems to use their clout as investors in both companies to oppose the deal if the payments were not rescinded. "There is simply no justification for these excessive payouts -- which will go to the very same HMO executives who engineered this merger," Angelides said in a letter to Schwarzenegger.- Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2005
Special Interests “I stood up to special interests.”
As political opposition mounted in California to a proposed merger between WellPoint Health Networks Inc. and Anthem Inc., state officials said Friday that they will take several more weeks to decide whether to approve the deal.
. . . At Friday's hearing, state Treasurer Phil Angelides testified that the DMHC director, a new Schwarzenegger administration appointee, should not approve the deal unless "the company's executives give up excessive, obscene and unearned paydays."Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, who did not appear, has said he will approve the merger only if the companies agree to invest in health programs for poor Californians an amount equal to the total dollar value of stock and cash payouts to executives. He said that could amount to as much as $600 million. - Sacramento Bee, July 10, 2004
Oil: Schwarzenegger has raised $2.3 million from oil companies, second in the nation to George W. Bush (according to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights). The oil companies’ investment has paid off. Gas prices have doubled since Schwarzenegger took office (California Energy Commission data). Rather than fighting for consumers, Schwarzenegger issued a tax-payer funded study that cleared oil companies of price gouging.
“The result of this investigation is more than just a whitewash,” said Charles Langley, who oversees the gasoline monitoring project for the Utility Consumers' Action Network. “The conclusion is an attempt to brainwash consumers into thinking nothing can be done.”- San Diego Union-Tribune, August 16, 2006
Special Interests “I stood up to special interests.”
Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a bill that would have required that half of new cars sold run on alternative fuels by 2020.
“Bills vetoed…
Clean vehicles
Would have required half of all new vehicles sold in the state to use alternative fuel by 2020 (AB 1012).”- Los Angeles Times, October 2, 2006
And Schwarzenegger opposes forcing oil companies to use a small portion of their enormous profits in order to increase investment in clean energy.
“Representatives for and against Proposition 87, the oil-drilling-tax ballot measure on November's ballot, were at Wednesday's signing, too. Advocate Beth Willon said the measure -- taxing oil companies about $4 billion, to be spent on developing alternative, renewable energy and reducing gas and diesel consumption by 25percent over 10 years -- is a perfect companion to the law Schwarzenegger just signed. Schwarzenegger opposes Proposition 87, saying he opposes all new taxes; Perata, Nunez and Angelides have endorsed it.”- Inside Bay Area, September 28, 2006
Drug Companies: Schwarzenegger has raised $1.5 million from drug companies and given them favors in return. According to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, the Governor is 2nd only to George W. Bush in the amount taken from drug companies. Schwarzenegger vetoed six affordable prescription drug bills (AB 1957, SB 1149, SB 1144, and SB 1333 in 2004; AB 73 and AB 76 in 2005) and Schwarzenegger supported the pharmaceutical company-backed Proposition 78 during his 2004 special election debacle.
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sided with drug companies and energy producers Friday on three initiatives on the Nov. 8 ballot, and formally backed another requiring parental notification on abortions for minors. Of the two competing measures on the Nov. 8 ballot regarding prescription drugs, the Republican governor backed Proposition 78, which is supported by the pharmaceutical industry.”- Sacramento Bee, September 23, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Reality Check: Balancing the Budget
In 2003, Schwarzenegger promised to cut up the state’s credit card (The San Francisco Chronicle, December 5, 2003). In his debate opening statement he claimed that he had reduced the structural deficit.
This is flat out wrong.
Caption: Schwarzenegger cutting up the state credit card in 2003.
Apparently, he only did this after qualifying for a new credit card with a bigger balance.
But Schwarzenegger now admits that “No, there really is no plan to end the deficit.” (KCRA, June 30, 2006)
David Bienick: “But you must have a plan of when you think can end the deficit?”
Schwarzenegger: “No, there really is no plan to end the deficit”
Indeed, LAO estimates deficits will continue at $5 billion per year.
“Despite much stronger-than-expected revenues, 2006-07 expenditures exceed revenues, with the difference being covered by the drawdown of carryover reserves available from 2005-06. Based on our out-year estimates of revenues and expenditures, we estimate that this imbalance will continue in 2007-08 and 2008-09 absent corrective action, with annual operating shortfalls in the range of $4.5 billion and $5 billion projected for this period.” (“California Spending Plan 2006-07: The Budget Act and Related Legislation: Summary”, Legislative Analyst’s Office, September 2006)
By year’s end, deficit-related debt will reach $25 billion – up almost 40 percent since Schwarzenegger took office.
The State’s debt for deficits, which was $18 billion when Governor Schwarzenegger took office, will reach $25.7 billion by the end of this fiscal year, more than $2,750 for each California family of four. By the 2007- 08 fiscal year, the State will spend around $3.5 billion in that year alone repaying deficit borrowing, more than it spends on the entire University of California system.
(http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/publications/2005dar.pdf; see also http://www.lao.ca.gov/2004/cal_facts/cal_facts_state%20budget_2004.pdf)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold's Newest Special Interest Slush Fund
Date Posted: October 4, 2006
by CDP Staff
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) was originally elected on a campaign promise to rid Sacramento of special interest influence. But in the last week, Californians have seen just how much of a sham that promise was. Specifically, Schwarzenegger is now traveling around the state holding official gubernatorial events that are sponsored by some of the wealthiest and most powerful special interests in the state. Schwarzenegger is actively soliciting cash from these special interests to underwrite the cost of lavish bill signing ceremonies. Schwarzenegger claims with a straight face he's doing this to save taxpayers money - but it's obvious that he's created a secret campaign slush fund by which he can hide exorbitant campaign contributions from the interests who are buying favors from his office. Schwarzenegger has even created his own special non-profit group by which to move these campaign donations through - a move that government watchdog groups say may violate strict campaign finance laws.
Arnold Launders Special Interest Cash Through A Non-Profit: The Los Angeles Times reports that "a tax-exempt group set up to create jobs is being used by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to bankroll a pair of splashy bill-signing events designed to attract publicity as he runs for reelection." Unlike contributions to Schwarzenegger's campaign account, donations to the nonprofit are not subject to caps or disclosure requirements. Part of the cost of these events is "being picked up by the Commission for Jobs and Economic Growth, a nonprofit panel that Schwarzenegger launched in 2004 to lure business to California." Among the commission's donors are major California companies with business before the state, including PG&E and Southern California Edison.Watchdog groups said that when the governor takes official actions, taxpayers should foot the bill - not companies with business in Sacramento. "In my judgment, it violates the spirit of the Political Reform Act for him to privatize a gubernatorial function," said Robert Fellmeth, director of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego, referring to the 1974 law promoting ethics in government. PG&E spokeswoman Jann Taber said the company donated $100,000 to the governor's nonprofit group in March. Schwarzenegger's aides asked for even more cash for events. Both PG&E and Southern California Edison maintain an active lobbying presence in Sacramento and are regulated by the state Public Utilities Commission. A majority of the PUC's five commissioners have been appointed by Schwarzenegger.
Angelides Campaign Says Arnold's Special Interest Slush Fund Is Hypocritical: The Times notes that Democratic nominee Phil Angelides' campaign "sharply criticized the governor's use of corporate money that is not publicly disclosed." Said Angelides strategist Bill Carrick: "These are nothing but campaign events, and he is funding them with … donations that are secret." Schwarzenegger is clearly using the non-profit to circumvent campaign law and contradict his pledge to be free of special interest influence. For example, Schwarzenegger aides once refused to accept direct campaign contributions from PG&E, hoping to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest as the governor crafted a state energy policy. But there were no such restrictions for the jobs commission.
Watchdog Groups Question Arnold's Timing: The Sacramento Bee reports that "good-government advocates and Democrats said an influx of cash from various sources to provide good publicity for the governor on his official time right before an election raises a host of questions." Among them: Why does the governor need to hold two separate signing ceremonies for one bill where he beams in international figures via satellite on giant screens? Last week Schwarzenegger "signed Assembly Bill 32, a law capping greenhouse-gas emissions, at dramatic locations in San Francisco and Malibu. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and billionaire Richard Branson participated via satellite." Said Ned Wigglesworth, of California Common Cause: "Governor Schwarzenegger has the biggest soapbox in California. If he wants to promote a bill, he can certainly do so without paying exorbitant funds for huge television screens. He can go around the state and talk about a bill without tapping private donors." Schwarzenegger "has vastly upstaged his predecessors with the production of his events." Gov. Gray Davis "did not use campaign funds for bill-signing ceremonies."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past week, Arnold Schwarzenegger's extreme makeover has faced a little problem called "the truth." In a series of articles in papers throughout California, the supposedly moderate Schwarzenegger has been unmasked as the special interests' favorite go-to guy on everything from health care, to consumer protection to the environment. No matter how much Schwarzenegger tries to hide his record, the facts are clear: he continues to sell off Caliofornia's highest office to the highest bidders.
Arnold Goes To Bat For HMOs, Vetoes Health Reform. The LA Daily News reports that Schwarzenegger vetoed Democratic legislation to create a universal health care system in California. Schwarzenegger still claims he wants to see a "new paradigm that addresses affordability, shared responsibility and the promotion of healthy living" but he vetoed the measure anyway - undoubtedly thrilling the HMO interests that have given his campaigns more than a half million dollars in contributions. The bill's author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, said "Where there are no cost controls at all now, and enormous administrative overhead and profit for insurance companies, there would have been a transparent system that actually would succeed in making health care affordable in California." The bill would have provided every California resident with health insurance through a program administered by a new entity, the California Health Insurance Agency, that would have been headed by a commissioner appointed by the governor. The system would have been partially financed by the state's current spending on health care and partly by consumers and their employers in place of private insurance payments. A state commission would have made recommendations to the governor and Legislature about how much to charge patients and businesses in premiums. Supporters said it would save money by significantly reducing administrative costs, pointing to the 2 percent spent on administration by Medicare, the federal health care program for senior citizens, as an example. A program like the one proposed by Kuehl would save nearly $8 billion in the first year, according to an analysis by the independent Lewin Group commissioned by the bill's supporters.
Arnold Is A De Facto Insurance Industry Lobbyist. In a major expose, the Los Angeles Times reports that "With a onetime State Farm official and a former insurance lobbyist in top staff jobs, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is repeatedly siding with insurers in legislative battles as they maneuver to fend off fees, fines and concessions to policyholders." Specifically, a "veteran insurance lobbyist, Dan Dunmoyer, is now the governor's deputy chief of staff, helping to craft his entire policy portfolio." Meanwhile, "former State Farm official Kathleen Webb is Schwarzenegger's insurance advisor, vetting insurance-related bills that reach his desk and recommending which he should sign into law." According to the Times, "Both have given the insurance industry special access to Schwarzenegger's government and taken positions that protect insurers' financial interests." Webb, in particular, has met continually with industry trade groups and attended private meetings where insurance lobbyists plot strategy and discuss ways to push their agenda, her calendar shows. She has not recorded a single meeting with a consumer representative.
Insurance Industry Cash Pays Off. When insurance-related bills have crossed Schwarzenegger's desk, he has sided with - or at least not opposed - the industry nearly nine times in 10, a review of 56 bills tracked by insurance groups shows. At other times, he has sought to kill or blunt legislation before it reached him. "I don't know that I can point to one pro-consumer bill that has made it through and been signed by the governor in recent history," said Sen. Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento). The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights said: "People expected of Arnold Schwarzenegger independent advisors who would bring a fresh perspective. Instead, the governor has brought in State Farm and its cronies." Meanwhile, insurance money has poured into Schwarzenegger's campaign accounts. Since he jumped into the recall campaign in 2003, he has collected about $4.4 million in donations from insurance interests, state records show.
Arnold's Environmentalism Is A Sham. The Oakland Tribune reports that "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger talks green, but in fact is no friend to the environment, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Angelides and leading environmental groups said last week." Sara Wan, executive director of the of California Coastal Commissioner and Vote the Coast told the newspaper that Schwarzenegger has packed key environmental commissions, boards and state environmental agencies with industry lobbyists and campaign contributors. "Saying you favor the environment is meaningless without good appointments and the governor knows it ... Arnold's lips say green, but his actions say the opposite," she said. Sierra Club's immediate past president Larry Fahn said, "Signing a few good bills does not make one an environmentalist." Schwarzenegger wouldn't meet with the Sierra Club or complete its candidate questionnaire, Fahn said. Angelides did both, and even stayed late to continue the discussion, he said. "It was downright Clintonesque." And California League of Conservation Voters president Tom Adams said his group, "skeptical of election-year conversions" such as that which Schwarzenegger seems to have undergone, has endorsed Angelides. Don't be fooled by Schwarzenegger's impending signature of a landmark greenhouse-gas reduction bill, Adams warned; he had tried to gut the bill, and is only signing it now because the Legislature stuck to its guns.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L.A. Times Highlights Foxes Are Running Schwarzenegger Administration Policy Unit
Press Memo: September 26, 2006
by Jeff Millman, Press Secretary, CDP Democratic Victory 2006
Just as we see Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger crack the $100 million mark in special interest fundraising, Sunday's Los Angeles Times sheds some light on to how his operation works:
Hire industry lobbyist and top insurance company officials to top jobs in the Administration.
Let them set the policy - including 30 meetings with insurance industry lobbyists.
Take the side of the insurance companies 90 percent of the time.
Never meet with consumer groups.
What do you get? Well in Schwarzenegger's case, over $4 million in campaign donations from insurance interests.
Maybe that's why government reform groups say:
"'The governor's been a complete and utter failure on campaign finance reform,' said Ned Wigglesworth, policy advocate for California Common Cause. 'Both in not living up to his promise to sweep the special interests out of Sacramento and failing to introduce any meaningful campaign finance reforms in his three years in office.'"
"'To paraphrase the governor: The money continues to come in and the favors continue to go out, on his watch.'" (Los Angeles Daily News, September 23, 2006)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Doesn't Follow Through On First Lady's Good Works
Press Memo: September 25, 2006
by Jeff Millman, Press Secretary, CDP Democratic Victory 2006
On Tuesday, First Lady Maria Shriver is convening the 20th annual California Governor and First Lady's Conference on Women in Long Beach. Looks like a nice campaign event for Team Arnold.
I doubt if there will be too many major policy recommendations like an earlier conference chaired by First Lady Shriver. The Conference on Poverty, which was sponsored in part by the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, was held in Los Angeles this year and included a variety of experts to discuss poverty.
One quote from the conference rises above the rest - "I certainly believe that if individuals come together, if business leaders come together, if government leaders come together we can truly make ending poverty an attainable goal for all of us." - Maria Shriver (2006 DCHS Conference of Poverty, Review and Recommendations)
The conference issued a series of policy recommendation to cut child poverty in half in 10 years. These recommendations included a variety of ideas including some that the Governor has already opposed - like expanding the Healthy Families Program.
In addition this conference launched legislative efforts to curb poverty. The bill, AB 2556, declares a goal of the Legislature to reduce child poverty by one-half by January 1, 2016, and eliminate it entirely by January 1, 2026.
Lofty goals, but as Ms. Shriver mentioned if we come together we can make it an attainable goal. Unfortunately there is one group who is opposed to this goal: Gov. Schwarzenegger's Department of Finance. They opposed the bill because it will result in a "significant General Fund pressure to accomplish the goal of eliminating child poverty." Huh?
AB 2556 is currently awaiting the Governor's signature. We will have to see if Governor Schwarzenegger can do more than just show up at conferences for a photo op...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Buffett Rejects Bush/Schwarzenegger Tax Policies
Press Memo: September 25, 2006
by Jeff Millman, Press Secretary, CDP Democratic Victory 2006
Buffett's tax position to help the middle class similar to Phil Angelides'
In his meeting with Gov. Schwarzenegger today, perhaps Warren Buffett will share his disagreements with the Bush/Schwarzenegger tax policies that favor the rich.
Buffett has opposed Bush's tax cuts that favor the rich, arguing they create "an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit." The tax cut "would be a terrible mistake," the equivalent of "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." (New York Times, February 14, 2001)
In formulating his own fiscal policies, Schwarzenegger's top advisor was John Cogan, the conservative Stanford University economist who also drafted George W. Bush's tax cut proposal during the 2000 presidential campaign. (San Francisco Chronicle, September 14, 2003)
But Buffett's 2003 op-ed in the Washington Post suggests that he would disagree with Schwarzenegger's opposition to Phil Angelides' proposal to shift the tax burden off the middle class.
Like Angelides, Buffett argues for "reductions to those who both need and will spend the money gained…Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets."
America's second richest person continues: "When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a 'break' requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch." (Washington Post op-ed, May 20, 2003)
According to Buffett's explanation, Schwarzenegger's tax policy makes the middle class pay for Buffett's lunch, in addition to increases in prescription drug prices and tuition at California's public universities and colleges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Must Answer Questions About Homeland Security Mismanagement
Date Posted: September 22, 2006
by CDP Staff
As the battle to defeat international terrorism continues, Democrats have been asking the tough questions. Why are we still in a war in Iraq that has diverted key military and intelligence resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden? Why aren't we better focused on stabilizing other international hot spots that are terrorism's breeding ground? And on the domestic front, why aren't we doing a better job of securing the homeland? Last week, this last question hit home to Californians, as a major audit revealed the Schwarzenegger administration's dangerous mismanagement of homeland security resources. Because of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's negligence, California could lose a huge chunk of federal security resources - all while the Golden State becomes less and less secure. Sadly, Schwarzenegger has not answered why there has been such mismanagement, desperately hoping that no one asks the tough questions about why California's basic security has been allowed to languish. But the reality is clear: unless the questions are asked - and answered - California will continue to be unnecessarily put at risk.
Arnold Offers No Explanation For Homeland Security Negligence: One week after the 5-year anniversary of 9/11, the Orange County Register reports that "a state audit has found California's efforts to prepare for terrorist attacks or natural disasters are hampered in part because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration hasn't spent 42 percent of the U.S. Homeland Security grant money it has received since 2001." Because of this negligence, "the state stands to lose nearly a quarter billion dollars by Dec. 31 if it doesn't use the unspent grants." The audit also found that "the state's two annual statewide exercises have not adequately tested California medical facilities' ability to handle mass casualties." Additionally, the Schwarzenegger administration "hasn't made sure that all counties' emergency preparedness plans are up to date. The audit found that since 2002, 35 of California's 58 counties' emergency operation plans have not been reviewed." Schwarzenegger admitted that auditors "are absolutely correct" but made no apologies or explanation as to why he has so mismanaged California's homeland security funding.
Auditor Details The Probelms Under Arnold's Management: The Los Angeles Times reports that State Auditor Elaine M. Howle says in the report that not only has the Schwarzenegger administration "let tens of millions of dollars in federal emergency preparedness grants languish unspent" it has also "not adequately tested the ability of California's medical facilities to handle mass casualties." Homeland security funding "is supposed to be used to reimburse local governments for equipment purchases, training and other expenses related to disaster preparedness." But the state can be so slow in reimbursing these expenses, according to the report, that some cities cannot afford to continue participating in the plan. "A commander with the city of Santa Ana's Police Department told us the city often runs a deficit from $1.5 million to $4 million because it has not received reimbursements for its homeland security purchases," the report said. "The commander said that at a certain point the city will no longer allow the deficits to increase, preventing additional purchases."
Editorial Rakes Arnold Over The Coals: In a scathing editorial, the Contra Costa Times notes that "failure to make expeditious decisions is not the only problem with the state's homeland security spending." In fact, "the governor's Office of Homeland Security found that in 12 of 13 cases, purchases were either 'inappropriate' or insufficiently justified in documents." Furthermore, "the audit determined that the state's homeland security office has an unclear role and has not designed exercises that truly test emergency medical care." The editorial said "clearly, the state's homeland security office and agencies that spend money on security are going to have to do a better job of accounting and control. That is particularly true with a deadline to spend nearly a quarter billion dollars in the next few months...It has been five years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. By now, the federal government and California should be further along in improving public safety from natural and man-made disasters. Let's hope the state's recent audit serves as a wake-up call to those responsible for spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. They need to do a better job in making sure they significantly improve our security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
